Orissa High Court | Delay in Executing Supreme Court Consent Decree Termed Human Rights Violation | State Directed to Comply Under Order XLV Rule 15 CPC, ₹2 Lakh Costs Imposed
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad on 8 September 2025 ordered the State to comply with a 1992 Supreme Court settlement concerning a disputed forest lease, holding the decree executable under Order XLV Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Directing supply of timber or its market value to the decree holders, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh on the State for decades of inaction, observing that “delayed justice is an egregious form of human rights violation” in failing to honour a clear mandate of the apex court
The dispute originated in the late 1970s when a forest coupe in Karanjia Division was first leased to contractor R.S. Bhatia. After he defaulted, the lease was terminated and subsequently awarded to another contractor, Udayanath Sahoo. Bhatia challenged the termination and succeeded before the High Court, resulting in competing claims over the lease. Both Sahoo and the State pursued appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in 1992, disposed of the matter by recording a settlement between Sahoo and Bhatia. Under its terms, the State of Odisha was obligated to identify standing trees afresh, with felling operations to be conducted by the Orissa Forest Development Corporation, a State undertaking. The expenses were to be shared equally, and the resulting timber and firewood divided between the contractors, adjusted for quantities already removed.
Following this order, the decree holders alleged that the State failed to take necessary steps to comply. They filed contempt petitions, which were dismissed, with the Supreme Court granting liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum. Execution proceedings were later initiated to enforce the settlement and directions.
The decree holders contended that the order of the Supreme Court was binding and executable, that objections raised by the State had already been rejected, and that the authorities had a constitutional duty to implement the directions. They also argued that if specific execution was not possible, substituted relief should be granted to preserve their rights, along with reimbursement of costs incurred over prolonged litigation.
The State argued that the execution was not maintainable because it had not been a party to the settlement itself, invoking the doctrine of privity of contract. It further contended that enforcement was barred by subsequent developments in law, including the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and later jurisprudence prohibiting tree felling. According to the State, the arrangement had been frustrated by law. Additionally, it claimed that the decree holders had failed to meet contractual payment obligations within the prescribed time, and that the State had offered refund of money which was refused.
The statutory framework referred to in the proceedings included Order XLV Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The Court recorded: “Delayed justice is egregious form of human rights violation. At least, as a concession to shortness of human life, litigation longevity needs to be shortened, by devising new techniques.”
On enforceability, it stated: “Obviously, the order made by the Apex Court on 27.03.1992… cannot be disputed to be a ‘final order’ within the meaning of Rule 1, inasmuch as post order, nothing remained pending. Under this rule, it partakes the character of ‘decree’ by legal fiction.” It added: “Court Orders are not for photo framing, but are made for implementation.”
On the State’s objection of privity, the Court observed: “Without certain things being accomplished from the side of Judgment Debtors, the said settlement would lose its efficacy. Therefore, the Apex Court, after examining the same, specifically imposed certain obligations on the Judgment Debtors… Therefore, the first contention of learned AGA as to absence of privity of contract falls to the ground.” It further noted: “Our Constitution, vide Article 144 obligates every civil authority to act in aid of the decisions of Apex Court, whether party eo nomine or not.”
Regarding frustration of contract, the Court stated: “1980 Act was already there, as 1972 Act well was, when… disposed off only on 27.03.1992. The former was ten-year old and the later 20 years, as on that date. Thus, it is not a new development that was not within the contemplation of court & parties, when the final order was made.” It also remarked: “Apathy to the courts & their judgments is writ large, to say the least.”
On substituted remedies, the Court recorded: “In a changed circumstance, if primary rights under the decree for some reason cannot be enforced, then their secondary rights have to be recognized & enforced by way of granting substituted remedy. It is the duty of Executing Court to make all endeavours in this direction.”
On the issue of payment, it stated: “Contracts are entered into, not for committing breach but for discharge of obligations undertaken, pacta sunt servanda, being the foundational principle of social organization.”
The Court ordered: “The Judgment Debtors shall supply to the Decree Holders the quantity of logs of wood under the forest contract… within three months, subject to deficit of stipulated payments being made good by the Decree Holders with simple interest @ 6% per annum… Alternatively, the Judgment Debtors shall pay to the Decree Holders within three months the present market value… The Judgment Debtors shall pay to the Decree Holders within three months a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-… by way of exemplary costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. G. Mukharjee, Senior Advocate with M/s. P. Mukharjee, B. Mishra, J. Rath, S. Pattnaik, M.K. Majumdar, N.K. Shit and S. Panigrahi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. D. Lenka, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Udayanath Sahoo (Dead) represented by LRs. & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number: Execution Case No. 2 of 1997
Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad
